Jeeps_Guns_Tanks

20 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

I don't need anything detailed. I'm just curious to see for example if there are five oil circuits or one common for all engines. 

On the A57 from the start it used a dry sump system, with a big main suction pump and a secondary scavenger pump, and a big ass tank of oil mounted on the inside of the fighting compartment on the rear wall. 

Gas is sucked through one big mechanical pump for all motors. 

The cooling system was only only one that used pumps mounted on each engine bank, but the belt loads cause poor service life, so they switched to one MASSIVE water pump. 

Kicking a dead horse, is amusing. 

courtesy of DeRPK-74M(M-100)

4 hours ago, Beer said:

Would you have some schematics of the oil, water and fuel circuit of the A57 to see how many of each pumps are involved and how is the distribution and collection done? 

Some.  I have parts break downs for all the oil and fuel lines, and flow charts for fuel and I think water. It also depends on the engine. They are surprisingly inconsistent with what's in the various manuals. 

Late night batch of images. 

Look at this BLOCK!! 

Crankshaft, Rod, and Piston!!

I have a bunch of images in the works, but finished this one. Last year I got my hands on a copy of Ord 7 SNL G-104 Tank, Medium, M4A3, 105-mm Howitzer. This is just a suppliment to the G-10X for the M4A3 tanks, for the items specific to the 105 tanks. The pictures in this are better than the WWII parts catalogs. The 105-mm M4 Howitzer image in this catalog is was very nice and needed very little improvement once scanned. 

This is the older one I had, from TM9-7018, Medium Tank M4A3. The image quality in this manual is not so good. 

This was as nice as I could get this one. This image has just been reproduced to many times on bad scanners. 

New A57 image and fixed the older one. 

Here, you can see the belt driven water pumps and generator. The Generator was moved to the fighting compartment, run from a the drive shaft. 

Look at that magnificent son of a bitch!!   This is the almost final version, the final major change was to move all the carbs up in a row at the top of the motor. They solved the different length tubes going to each engine by putting baffles in them to get even flow across all five carburetors.  Finding images of this is hard most display motors have the earlier setup.

Here's one. 

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

Are you actually reading the thread or just dropped in for the last 5 posts? This thread is an emotion dumping ground. Some can't sleep unconvinced that German ww2 tanks are shit.

It's funny, a useless windbag like you would accuse another poster of not reading the thread, you admit to not reading.  More reasons to make fun of you and not take your poorly thought out posts seriously.  Bad troll is bad. You bring shame to your boo ancestors.   

8 hours ago, delete013 said:

You say that while shitposting?

His posts are better than yours. 

8 hours ago, delete013 said:

 

In short, they were fucked from the get go. Also, the economy was not mobilised until 1943, because, among other reasons, nobody even remotely expected to be able to counter the Allied numbers. The early tanks were quite costly, and panthers were only some 25% more expensive than Pz4.

Frankly, I have no idea what is needed to build gear-cutting machines but early mobilisation would be likely advantageous. Sectors of industry also suffered quite significantly from certain bombing raids.

It's pretty clear you have no idea on just about anything you've talked about in this thread.    Like, do you know anything?  How do you not know ALL U.S. Tank Guns, from the 75mm M2 in the Lee to the current ones automatically ejected their shells. Like have you read anything but that Jentz book you posted with the suspicious stains?

You think a conventional pushrod V12 that couldn't make its design horsepower, is some miracle of technology, while shit talking the Ford GAA. The GAA being an overhead cam V8 with 4 valves per cylinder and being all aluminum made it right on the cutting edge of automotive technology. You having no idea about engines is clear when you spew shit about German motors being something special. 

13 hours ago, delete013 said:

This was such a clown shoes response. I guess you believe that propaganda. You still buy this bullshit after most of the big encounters where the Hero Nazi's you worship killed a horde of T-34s or Shermans, have been debunked, many by the guy who started this thread, and that just makes you an asshole.  It boils down to you're a troll, trolling about liking Nazi shit, or moron who actually believes the bullshit you're spewing, in either case, you don't look real good.  I hope you're a stupid kid, many of us really liked German tanks when when we were young and stupid, but we all read enough actual history to grow out of it. You could actually learn something from the people who tried to be nice to you in this thread, but at this point, you presence on this forum is so poisoned, no one is going to take you seriously. 

This Panther is like Deletes arguments in this thread. Full of holes. 

12 hours ago, DogDodger said:

Could be, haven't read about that.

Damn, I was hoping you had heard something about it, now I'm going to have to search for it! I have no idea what book or if it might even be wrong, I mean, you really know your stuff! 

Quote

 

Seeing M48s in person, the gun seemed a bit unimpressive compared to the size of the vehicle to me as well. The original cupola was pretty slick, but couldn't be reloaded from under armor, of course, so the bad M1 cupola was a go.

Because he's the assistant driver; the radio was in the turret bustle. Perhaps a better question would be: why was the assistant driver not provided with duplicated controls in all US designs? The TC's cupola has a rotating periscope in the hatch door, as well. As we mentioned earlier, trials at Aberdeen indicated that the T26E1 was better cross-country than the HVSS Sherman. We're lamenting the M26's near-vertical turret armor while comparing it to the Centurion?

The M26's performance in Korea can be considered an outlier as far as reliability goes. MacDonald et al in "The Employment of Armor in Korea," vol.I, noted, "The M26 tanks were a later World War II development and were in a generally poor physical condition." And when discussing the cannibalization required due to spare part scarcity: "This situation was aggravated because many of the tanks brought to Korea had seen extensive service elsewhere or had deteriorated while in storage. One battalion with M26 tanks departed the US with all but 10 to 12 tanks in unsatisfactory operating condition. These tanks, in operation since 1946 in troop training, were in serious need of complete overhaul."

Scarce indeed. In Korea, the physical width of the tank precluded some routes, and the steep hills were taxing, but what issues were prevalent off-road?

The Pershing wasn't really a heavy tank, as noted earlier. It was named a heavy for morale purposes for a couple years, but actual heavy tanks were in development.

The T26E5 was tested starting in July 1945 and performed well besides having to take it easy over rough ground to avoid suspension damage. World War II was over, though, so a prototype was all that was going to be produced. Panther's steering design was clever, but in practice the final drive design and material hindered this advantage since using the steering brakes caused the final drives to shear, no?

What can we take so for from Delete's responses? He didn't know the US all around vision cupola has a HUGE rotating periscope in it, and it pans up and down too.  He also thinks the design of said cupola is bad, based on his vast knowledge of tanks.  We can also take from his posts, his vast research into the Pershing, led him to believe the co-driver was the radio operator.  It most be super secret or something that US Tanks put the radios in their turrets, at least since the Lee. I mean otherwise how could someone as well read and smart as Delete not know it?  Oh and another wonderful tidbit, he thinks the very conventional HL230 was more advanced than the all aluminum, 4 valve per cylinder, overhead cam motor, that was the Ford GAA. Meaning he also doesn't anything about engines.  

10 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

I see you guys have this idiot in hand already.

Panther worst tank, WWII Germany worst country, losers be losers.

It's kind of sad really, Delete is being destroyed by Toxn, Beer, and Dog, and he just shits all over them. 

They are better men than me and because of that, I have room to try and go for the comedy relief. There is nothing like watching a hardcore boo, and this guy is about bad as they get ("Nazi tank designers are the best" ROFL OMFG LOL), without going down the path HitlerJr88t took.  You would think he would thank them for straitening him out, instead he's a snarky little dick. I bet the he still hasn't read the whole thread, or anything on the Pershing(LOL the co-driver is the co-driver you idiot), or anything by Zaloga, since Boos HATE him. 

8 hours ago, Toxn said:

I occasionally play this mental game where I imagine describing, let's call it the Pz.44, to the typical wehraboo.

 

"It had a low profile, only 10cm taller than the PzIV. But the vehicle is much more heavily armed and armoured (equivalent or better to a Tiger frontally, only a little thinner on the side)."

"Fantastic. Really good, compact design. The Germans were known to be good at efficient layouts."

 

"The drivetrain was extremely compact and reliable, with a better power-to-weight ratio than PzIV, as well as a slick automatic gearbox that reduced workload on the driver and improved offroad mobility."

"Wonderful, truly a vehicle for mobile warfare. Didn't Guderian say, after all, that the principle weapon of the tank was its engine and radio?"

 

"The vehicle had lots of vision devices, a large, roomy interior and nice-to-haves like panoramic gunner's sights and an azimuth indicator in the commander's cupola."

"Brilliant. We know that the crew which sees the target and fires first usually wins. This all adds up to an improvement in firepower!"

 

"Over 2000 were produced in less than a year, making it a relatively common sight on the battlefield when compared to older heavies such as Tiger."

"That's great! Wars are won by industrial production as much as by feats of arms - look at the miracles that Speer accomplished."

 

"It had lots of upgrade potential. Prototypes were produced with guns and armour equivalent to Tiger II, but without completely sacrificing either mobility or reliability."

"This is what made the Germans so formidable during the second world war - their ingenuity and ability to improve on existing designs. If only it had been fielded for longer, it would have had the potential to turn the tide of the war."

 

"It was made by Americans."

"Oh, it's absolute shit then."

Spot on and very funny, but Delete is going to think your American bias is showing. 

I just can't get over he's arguing about the Pershing, and MISSED THE Periscope in the photo of the Pershing in this very thread!! This is why I really think he might be running the "I'm dumb, but also arrogant and ignorant", troll on us.  I mean, he thought the CO-Driver was the radio operator, and was confused why the CO-DRIVER had controls for the tank, but didn't know he didn't have the radio? Has he even looked at a single book on the Pershing? Is there anyone truly this ignorant, arrogant, and stupid left on the internet? 

I have to rub it in more!  Look at the HUGE, Fucking gigantic periscope sticking out of the commanders hatch!!~!

52 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Sorry for sabotaging your Germany-bashing thread.

Universally liked is irrelevant if you had none before. Today Abrams uses "German" cupola arrangement..

Don't be sorry, bashing you is fun, the thread will be fine.

13 hours ago, delete013 said:

I never heard any praise of Pershing's comfort. Apart from broad turret ring, it seems rather cramped. Cent on the other hand is pretty famous for its spaciousness. It is also the biggest.

 

Pershing had the richness of dubious redundancies. Why two gun sights? Why did the radioman have a reserve steering set? Why didn't it have two level magnification in a gun sight? This makes it so much easier to observe and aim. Commander's cupola is useless for observation. Those glass slits certainly don't offer good vision.

 

Caped AP shells are bigger but offer about the same effect as smaller PzGr39.

 

Engine bay should have been smaller, not bigger. It pushed the turret to the front and sealed any chances of an upgrade. Armour angle is also smaller due to this.

 

Mobility is obvious also an issue and a medium with poor agility is an easy target.

 

Turret form is sub par. It features plenty of nice vertical surfaces and the inverted heart form makes the cheeks quite vulnerable to hits from 30deg angles. Mantlet also features the panther's shot trap.

 

I seriously doubt it is a match.

 

As biased as usual. How about an honest opinion by an American officer from Hunnicutt's book?

 

- The Pershing story might well be summarized by the words of Captain Elmer Gray replying to the tank
crews at Aachen when they asked if the Pershing was equal to the German King Tiger and Panther. His answer was, "Hell no, but it is the best tank we have yet developed and we should have had it a year earlier".

Pulling stupid shit out of your ass, then putting one quote from a book you don't seem to have read, does not make your arguments better.   You claiming the cupola was bad when it was was universally liked on the Sherman and Pershing, just shows how wrong you are and your just making up.  I'd say you were a Troll, using the "Dumb Troll" technique, but that may be giving you to much credit.

33 minutes ago, Toxn said:

Upgraded Cents get higher scores - up to Olifant, which gets an 11/10

Yeah, but then the Pershing's newer stronger brothers the M46/47 and M48, all oddly named Patton come into the picture. 

8 hours ago, DogDodger said:

You might be able to get close with extra normally-spaced road wheels, but then you risk getting into TOG- or T-35-sized length, which would itself affect maneuverability. Not suggesting that the Schachtellaufwerk is worth the effort (the caveats at the end of the post hint toward my opinion), but when comparing the Pershing and Panther, just wanted to point out that nominal ground pressure tells far from the whole story. Perhaps Schachtellaufwerk might be thought of as almost a sort of technology demonstrator: outstanding softer-terrain performance though not necessarily cut out for the ease of use desirable for a war machine.

 

Not the lifting capacity per se as I understand it, but as N-L-M said, more of an issue of the products which were presented. Armored Force commander MG Devers said in December 1942, "Due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there is no requirement in the Armored Force for the heavy tank. The increase in the power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor." Hunnicutt opines that the Armored Force would rather have shipped two medium tanks than a single heavy tank. But of course, the heavy tank that Devers was talking about was the M6, so it's no wonder...

Wasn't there also a flat car limitation? If I recall right, we did not have much rolling stock that could handle a M26 let alone anything heavier during WWII? 

14 hours ago, Toxn said:

 

This discussion has actually given me a renewed appreciation for the M26.

 

It's lower and shorter than Centurion or Panther, has worse frontal hull protection than the latter (but better side, top, turret, rear protection) and is generally more comfy than either. It's gun is perfectly fine, and has decent HE capability (unlike the other two). The soft factors (crew comfort, lots of viewing devices, a low and high-magnification gun sight, roof MG mounts, raised driver's seat, duplicated driver's controls, large engine bay hatches, ammunition layout etc) are all nice.

 

Overall, I'd say that the common historical verdict on the Pershing is more or less correct: it was an interim vehicle, advanced in some ways over its predecessor but not fully developed and lacking in certain areas. Even so, I'd say that it's the most balanced and usable of the three late-war heavy mediums. A solid 6/10 to the Cent 1's 5 or the Panther's 4. The T-44, for reference, is more like a 6.5-7, while the first-run T-54 is more like an 8.

I agree. It seems like the Cent had more room to grow, but that may just been shear numbers sold, the Countries with them opting to upgrade instead of getting newer tanks.  The Pershing didn't get used by many countries, and the ones that did, could get better tanks from the US or built their own, so there was not much demand to keep the Pershing around and upgrade it.

3 hours ago, DogDodger said:

You have high standards for ground clearance. The Pershing was designated as a heavy for a short while, but was begat by a medium design; actual heavy designs were ongoing but didn't see service before the war ended. Hunnicutt and Yeide agree that the "heavy" nomenclature was mostly for morale purposes. I'm not sure it was quite as bad off-road as you make it seem, but I do find the T25 a tantalizing what-if.

 

Panther used a geared steering system and not a triple-differential, no? The nominal ground pressures were indeed similar (and even favored the Pershing, depending on the source), but the Panther's mean maximal pressure and other off-road performance characteristics would benefit from its maintenance-unfriendly road wheel setup. Wong has some interesting simulations in Terramechanics and Off-road Vehicle Engineering between a baseline M113-type vehicle with 5 road wheel stations, the same vehicle with 6 road wheel stations, and the same vehicle with 8 overlapping road wheel stations. The simulations are run on snow and clayey soil, and the machine with more road wheels shows better performance in everything from wheel sinkage to drawbar pull to tractive effort to trim angle, etc. Panther weighed 6.9-8.6% more than the M26, but its tracks were 2-3" wider and it had 2 more road wheel stations per track in the same ground contact length and essentially the same track pitch (5.9" for the Kgs 64/660/150 vs. 6" for the M26's tracks). Double torsion bars were probably needlessly complex, the interleaved wheels required inordinate effort and time for maintenance, and the final drive was never adequately strengthened, but credit where due: the thing should perform quite well off-road.

I think I've seen charts talking about the same things, they may even be somewhere in these 89s pages! Surely it does not do enough to warrant the nightmare the Panthers Suspension was to deal with in every other way.  We could also really get into the weeds, and talk about Track and road wheel durability. Jentz mentions issues with the Panther tracks bending guide horns, are these problems aggravated off road, negating any advantage the suspension is going to give you. I don't recall the Pershing having similar suspension issues. The advantage the Panthers Road Wheel system offered must be minor enough no copied it on tanks. Surely you can get damn close with an extra normal size road wheel and shocks?

This is why I added the month to the original question. Operate a Battalion of Perishing's and Panthers under similar conditions, and even with similar supply systems, the Pershing Battalion will have more running, combat ready tanks at the end of the month. Working on the Pershing would be so much easier, it would give it the edge. 

Check out this guys Flickr

He has many car, plane and tank pics, and seems to be connected to a very cool tank restoration shop. 

(That funny feeling in the pit of your stomach, Wehraboos, is the feeling you get when you look upon good tanks)

52 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

So, basically nothing... okay... have it your way then. Hard to take you seriously. Discussion finished for my part. 

Run along apologist, you won't be missed.

I've gotten really good at fixing messed up scans, and cleaning up old images. I have a system to the simple ones can be done in like 10  to 15 minutes. The complicated ones depend on how many extra things I want to label, and how bad the original was. 

Bad scan

FIxed

A few more GAA things. I'm going to redo all these one more time. 

I put a little tutorial on my website about scanning printed media. Descreen is your friend people!!

I now have at least one of those for each engine.  The A57 is going to have four more.

I have the shop manuals, parts catalogs and TMs for all the different engines now, and enough other material, I really think I'm going to put a little book together based on my Data booklet I did for the GAA. 

On 7/29/2019 at 9:26 AM, EnsignExpendable said:

Speaking of M4A3s, I just learned that Dragon makes a 1:6 scale M4A3. One sixth! I don't think that will even fit on a bookshelf...

I've been searching around, and this place is doing a pre order on it. 

http://www.fieldofarmortanks.com/dra75055-m4a3-105mm-howitzer-m4a3-75-w-tank-2-in-1-pre-order-price/

That thing is the size of a coffee table!

8 hours ago, Lord_James said:

New coup just dropped in Myanmar early this month. 

Wasn't there a aerobics Youtuber who streamed it live?

20 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

That's company of Mr. Šercl based in Northern Bohemia, he built the engines for LT vz.35, LT vz.38 and AH-IV-Sv of Lešany muzeum as well, also Hetzer engine for Flying Herritage (he did more Hetzers). He has also a technical muzeum. You can find tons of photos from various restoration here.

Sweet!

I know I spent hours looking through those engine photos.